Feedback: A Common Misconception

I am a medical illustrator and published author.
I wanted to let you know that I really liked your web site.

Thanks!

Though I am not a christian or creationist, I found your
site very informative, well written, balanced and interesting. Your
site is a “breath of fresh air” compared to the majority
of non-sensical creationist sites out there.

Believe it or not, we hear that a lot. We really do appreciate
the comments because we work hard to be as accurate as possible.

I adhere to the theory of evolution as correct along with
the many other scientific theories (“theory” used in the
technical sense).

Which view of evolution do you adhere to? Neo, Traditional,
PE (punctuated equilibrium)? Or are you using ‘evolution’ simply to mean ‘change
of gene frequency over time’, which no informed creationist doubts.
It’s important to define terms accurately and avoid the fallacy
of equivocation or bait-and-switch.

But I also think that God created the universe, I guess
that makes me a “theistic evolutionist”. Aren’t labels
great?

They can be, if they are used accurately to define someone’s
beliefs accurately. How would you define ‘God’ in the sense
that you believe He created the universe? Would it be the God of the Bible,
or Allah, or Brahman (from Hinduism)? I believe that if God was powerful
enough to create the universe, then He should be powerful enough to tell
us how and why He did it. This is one reason that I believe the Bible
to be from God.

I have become interested in the “creationist”
movement because it has come to my attention that modern creationist
groups are lobbying legislatures to pass laws to force public schools
to teach “creationism” on an equal footing with science.
With which I strongly disagree.

AiG is not a lobby group, and we oppose legislation for
compulsion of creation teaching [see “Textbook Wars: a Different Angle”]. For one thing, one school of thought
is that sending kids to public schools is like Moses sending the Israelite
children to Canaanite schools. But mainly, why would we want an atheist
forced to teach creation and give a distorted view? But we would like
legal protection for teachers who present scientific arguments against
the sacred cow of evolution.

Also, most of the people involved in the actual lobbying
at present are part of the ID movement, not biblical creationists. Please
see our comments on the ID movement. Also, we note your
attempt to contrast creation and science, which is not a legitimate contrast
since many creationists are highly qualified scientists, including many
staff of AiG (see biography page).
Also, the founders of many major fields of science were bible-believing
creationists. See “The Creationist Basis for Modern Science.” It is not a
matter of creation vs science.

It’s also important to note that many evolutionists
have a strong anti-theistic religious agenda.
And when ‘religion’ was kicked out of schools, it only seemed
to be directed at Christianity. The fact was that it was replaced by another
religion called Secular Humanism.

Most don’t realize that Secular Humanism was recognized
by the US Supreme Court as a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso
vs Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961)contains the following statement:

Among religions in this country which do not teach what
would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are
Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism (emphasis
added), and others.

Two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II that exactly
state what evolution teaches are:

Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as
a result of a continuous process.

Since the US Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as
a religion, and since the two tenets above come from the Humanist Manifesto,
one can conclude that by teaching evolutionism (or at least the part of
evolutionism that says that the universe is ‘self existing and not
created’, and that man ‘has emerged as a result of a continuous
process’) a teacher is, in fact, teaching a religion. The humanists
are the loudest criers of the notion of separation of church and state
and that anything religious may not be taught in the government schools.
Therefore, evolutionism should not be taught in the government schools
either, since it is religion (according to the US Supreme Court).

The problem is that many humanists control the state education
system and fail to make the clear distinction between evolution and real science
(and this suits activist courts with their corrupt and self-serving ideas of
an evolving legal system aka a ‘living Constitution’—see Nancy
Pearcey’s article “Why Judges
Make the Law: The Roots and Remedy of Judicial Imperialism” and Rodney Hordern’s
article ‘Human rights versus biblical responsibility,’ TJ17(3):109–112, 2003). However, the type of science that put men
on the moon, cures diseases, and enables technological advances, is operational
science, supported by repeatable observations in the present. Evolution
might be termed origins or historical science which can’t
be repeated and so cannot be tested by any experiment. But it does what it can
to piggy back on the (deserved) high reputation of operational science.

Luckily the attempts by creationist to force these laws
have either failed or have been overturned.

Actually, we want the students to be taught more about evolution
than the establishment wants to be taught. That is, we would like teachers
to have the freedom to teach the evidence against evolution. As it stands,
they can’t, according to “Supreme Court: Don’t Teach Evolution Difficulties!”
This is because the evolutionary (secular humanist) establishment doesn’t
want students to learn about the problems, and a leading supporter of
such evolutionary indoctrination inadvertently reveals why:

In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics
for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is
virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead
them to reject one of the major themes in science.

–Eugenie Scott, leader of the NCSE, cited in Where Darwin Meets the Bible—by
anti-creationist Larry Witham (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Creationists are sometimes accused of not being ‘true
scientists’ because of our biblical bias. So why isn’t the
same charged raised against evolutionists with dogmatic materialistic
biases? A few evolutionists are honest enough to own up to their biases,
e.g. Lewontin and Todd,
with their faith commitment to materialism. Right now, students are being
told it is a fact, but it is a one sided view without even a hint that
evolution is being shot full of holes—even by evolutionists themselves.

So people come out of schools believing evolution because
much of the truth was hidden from them. This may have even happened to
you within some approximation as it did with all of us.

I think that religious views, regardless, of how they
are labeled should not be taught in science class in public schools.
Religious dogma has no place in science classes. To put religion or
spirituality on the same level as science demeans religion.

Then you would agree that Secular Humanism should be kicked
out as well. The problem is that in the science classroom right now they
teach the Secular Humanist INTERPRETATION of the evidence.

Have you ever heard where someone says that evolution has
all the ‘facts’ or all the ‘evidence’. The problem
with this is that any religion can claim that. We all live on the same
earth and we all look at the same evidence—it is the interpretationof the evidence that is different. Please take some time to
read the article “Creation: “Where’s the Proof?””

However, I have no problem with religious ideas being
mentioned in an appropriate class, like Social Studies or History or
a philosophical course.

This also seems to commit the fallacious fact-value distinction.

I think that individual prayer should be allowed in public
schools, but not teacher lead (school sanctioned) prayers. I think that
if a child chooses to say grace over his lunch or to pray to Allah during
a break, it should be allowed. Religion is an important part of our
society.

I agree here, too, and in fact this is legal. See the “Christian Law Association’s Rights in Public Schools.” Of
course ‘religion’ is important to society, but implicit in
your statement seems to be the assumption that ‘all religions are
equal’. But this is not tenable, because different religions make
contradictory claims to truth. For example, the Bible says that Jesus
died (and rose from the dead), whereas the Koran claims he did not die.
Now he either died or he didn’t, both cannot be true. Furthermore,
Christianity made countries like America great, not Buddhism, Hinduism,
Shamanism, Atheism or Islam. For the utmost relevance of Christian
faith to society, see, for example, “Rape and evolution.”

I have bookmarked your site and will return to read more.

Thanks,

M. D.

Houston, TX, USA

Thanks and I pray you will take some time to evaluate these
things. May God richly bless you as you seek the truth.

Newsletter

Thank You!

Thank you for signing up to receive email newsletters from Answers in Genesis.

Whoops!

Your newsletter signup did not work out. Please refresh the page and try again.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.